Human “resources”? Objectification at work.

Abstract

People behave differently when at work than not at work; for example, they are less interested in making close friends and use more transactional language (networking vs. socializing). These examples hint at a broader phenomenon: that people engage in more objectification—treating people akin to objects—in work contexts than non work contexts. We propose that objectification is more prevalent at work because people engage in more calculative and strategic thinking (i.e., making decisions by computing the costs and benefits). Seven studies (N = 2,712) test this. In Study 1, participants objectified the same individuals more when they were pictured at work (e.g., in an office) than not at work (e.g., in a coffee shop). In Study 2, there was more objectification when the same event was framed as more (vs. less) work-related. Studies 3a and 3b (experience-sampling studies with 2,300 data points) show that working adults objectify others more during work than non work interactions and demonstrate which situational characteristics enhance objectification. Study 4 manipulates the proposed mechanism: Participants nudged to think less calculatively and strategically showed a reduced tendency to objectify others in work contexts. Considering consequences, job applicants in Study 5 who read company mission statements containing more calculative language expected more objectification and were less interested in applying. Moreover, employees who perceived more objectification in their workplace reported more negative work experiences (e.g., feeling lower belonging, experiencing more incivility; Study 6). Together, these studies provide insight into how objectification arises, where it occurs, and its consequences.

RETRACTED: Tight Cultures Breed Dehumanization: An Interdisciplinary Approach

“…A growing number of studies have now revealed intra-and interpersonal factors that could trigger dehumanization. These include the feeling of disgust (e.g., Hodson & Costello, 2007), the target's social category (e.g., Kersbergen & Robinson, 2019;Harris & Fiske, 2006;Petsko et al, 2020;Rudman & Mescher, 2012), a group-protective motive (Koval et al, 2012), heuristic thinking (Prati et al, 2015), perceived threat (Viki et al, 2012), social power (e.g., Gwinn et al, 2013;Hodson & Costello, 2007), motivation for money (e.g., Wang & Krumhuber, 2017), certain work features (Belmi & Schroeder, 2021;Valtorta et al, 2019), and immoral acts or in delity (e.g., Bastian et al, 2013;Rodrigues et al, 2018).…”

“You are a useful person”: Economic inequality leads people to approach instrumental others

“…In the current study, we found that economic inequality, as a macrolevel environment factor, has a significant role in triggering instrumentality orientation. The finding support that the role of external environmental characteristics on objectification (see also Belmi & Schroeder, 2021).…”

“…A previous study found that a society with high inequality was perceived as having stronger norms of exchange relationships rather than communal relationships (Sánchez-Rodríguez et al, 2019b). Since the market pricing mindset emphasizing benefit-cost calculation in social relationships increased individuals' tendency to objectify others (Belmi & Schroeder, 2021), the effect of economic inequality on the preference for instrumental targets may be caused by the market-pricing mindset.…”

Recognizing humanity: dehumanization predicts neural mirroring and empathic accuracy in face-to-face interactions

“…This work adds to increasing evidence that many contexts produce dehumanization, including workplaces ( Belmi and Schroeder, 2020 ), incarceration ( Deska et al. , 2020 ) and clinical psychiatric settings ( Fontesse et al.…”